Doubt anyone will do anywhere near 30 years. Even so that would mean the oldest out at 69 or the youngest at 54. A daughter has been lost forever. If they are not being put to death they need flogging with a whip and sentenced to hard labour.

for want of clarification to anyone who may be interested - Islam falls under the umbrella of Abrahamic faith along with Judaism and Christianity. that makes the teachings of the Torah/Old Testament "common" as said in the Qu'ran. Consequently, teachings such as the 10 Commandments (No 6 being Thou shalt not kill) are shared though spoken of in slightly different terms (much like the different Jewish and Christian traditions. Islam makes no direct reference to the 10 commandments but holds very similar guidance (and not just through Ramadan)

Doubt anyone will do anywhere near 30 years. Even so that would mean the oldest out at 69 or the youngest at 54. A daughter has been lost forever. If they are not being put to death they need flogging with a whip and sentenced to hard labour.

Doubt anyone will do anywhere near 30 years. Even so that would mean the oldest out at 69 or the youngest at 54. A daughter has been lost forever. If they are not being put to death they need flogging with a whip and sentenced to hard labour.

Only In Saudi Arabia... our laws Say jail time. I do agree with your sentiment though.

The taxpayer needs to decide by a majority count on the punishment, when you spend your money on something you usually have the right to choose what you are paying for, the same should apply here, a fortune would be saved on MOJ costs with trials & appeals & prison costs, you would almost instantly reduce offending & repeat offending as a deterrent.

The taxpayer needs to decide by a majority count on the punishment, when you spend your money on something you usually have the right to choose what you are paying for, the same should apply here, a fortune would be saved on MOJ costs with trials & appeals & prison costs, you would almost instantly reduce offending & repeat offending as a deterrent.

Liberals don’t accept extremely harsh punishment. I accept they have different views. These types are intolerant of others views. A ‘life’ sentence that isn’t ‘rest of life’ is not worthy of the title. I strongly support capital punishment but it’s hardly odd and others can have their own views.

My idea would be 6 choices ranging from super soft to super hard, 6 choices, 2 from soft, 2 from medium, 2 from hard, the public could decide from a caution to capital punishment, issues like this the public need more involvement & input.

Liberals don’t accept extremely harsh punishment. I accept they have different views. These types are intolerant of others views. A ‘life’ sentence that isn’t ‘rest of life’ is not worthy of the title. I strongly support capital punishment but it’s hardly odd and others can have their own views.

Strange, as the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is;

'Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.'

My idea would be 6 choices ranging from super soft to super hard, 6 choices, 2 from soft, 2 from medium, 2 from hard, the public could decide from a caution to capital punishment, issues like this the public need more involvement & input.

Fantastic idea, Jakub, even by your standards.

So we get a postal vote every time someone is found guilty of a crime. Sounds like good fun. Can't see any issues at all to be honest. Just a really well considered idea.

Liberals don’t accept extremely harsh punishment. I accept they have different views. These types are intolerant of others views. A ‘life’ sentence that isn’t ‘rest of life’ is not worthy of the title. I strongly support capital punishment but it’s hardly odd and others can have their own views.

I'm pretty liberal....in this instance though it looks like an eye for an eye scenario...

My idea would be 6 choices ranging from super soft to super hard, 6 choices, 2 from soft, 2 from medium, 2 from hard, the public could decide from a caution to capital punishment, issues like this the public need more involvement & input.

It’s a good job we have the Covid thread or else a lot more people might actually see what you actually posted.
And please don’t ask me to explain why it’s a batshit crazy idea - it’s pretty self explanatory.

Letting the public vote on potential criminal punishments is insane on every conceivable level.

Justice should never, ever be governed by emotion.

It’s more democratic than 1 judge with a fixed mind sentencing, this way you get a large variety of people deciding upon the multiple choice selections, the multiple choice selections will cover variety, it’s a fair system not governed by just emotion you will have the overview of the nature of the crime before deciding upon any selections, justice should work for everyone.

its a northern mill town with great industrial heritage, murdering a teenager in broad daylight due to some shabby feud deserves death penalty. put simply, it should never have happened.no tolerance is the best approach. disgrace to the community.

This thread is the best possible demonstration why the public couldn’t be trusted with decisions on justice. Some people are bonkers and don’t know it. X factor type phone ins to decide if the Muslims are put to death? What could possibly go wrong?

I agree that prison should be tougher, but to achieve that would cost significantly more money per head than we currently spend. Not exactly a vote winner to throw more resource at prisoners at the expense of other stuff- or maybe it is?

We lock up more people than any other country in W. Europe, most of our prisons are outdated and packed. We need a thorough appraisal of who we are locking up and why. Far too many prisoners are the mentally ill, drug-addled or generally inadequate.
Invest in decent support systems for those types, freeing up the prisons for the scumbags like the killers of this lass.

I don't understand why certain people are so opposed to the honest hardworking taxpayer deciding for himself/herself where there money is getting spent after all they've earnt it, too many people are out on license roaming the streets or incarcerated in the system longterm. It's only deciding when the guilts been established beyond doubt, you've actually got something similar with a jury deciding upon the guilt but not sentencing, so we can trust a mixed jury to make a more important decision but we can't entrust the general public to make less of a important decision which costs them there own money, I'm bonkers you couldn't make it up

The taxpayer needs to decide by a majority count on the punishment, when you spend your money on something you usually have the right to choose what you are paying for, the same should apply here, a fortune would be saved on MOJ costs with trials & appeals & prison costs, you would almost instantly reduce offending & repeat offending as a deterrent.

I actually agree with this. I would like to vote that the punishment for people who break lockdown rules to go and buy non-essential paint should be that they have to drink the full tin of paint on front of a crowd of 100 members of covid victims families. Once public gatherings are allowed again, of course.

I actually agree with this. I would like to vote that the punishment for people who break lockdown rules to go and buy non-essential paint should be that they have to drink the full tin of paint on front of a crowd of 100 members of covid victims families. Once public gatherings are allowed again, of course.

Get with the programme, you obviously missed the ideas intentions of postal votes deciding upon the likes of Huntley & sutcliffe & suchlike, but it makes more sense to keep them locked up forever at the taxpayers expenses when I daresay the majority would choose a cheaper permanent fix, mental indeed!

Get with the programme, you obviously missed the ideas intentions of postal votes deciding upon the likes of Huntley & sutcliffe & suchlike, but it makes more sense to keep them locked up forever at the taxpayers expenses when I daresay the majority would choose a cheaper permanent fix, mental indeed!

This is the point. You can’t accept that others have different views to yours. I do.

No, the point is that you said liberals are intolerant of other people’s views. Which is exactly the opposite of the definition of liberal. So I don’t think you understand what liberal means. Using the term in a derogatory manner always amuses me as well as I can’t see anything negative about being liberal.

And disagreeing with others views is not the same as not accepting those views. Where have I shown that I can’t accept others views?

I accept that you want us to live in an uncivilised society where prisoners are flogged with a whip, that’s your view and you’re perfectly entitled to it. Although maybe you would be better served moving to such a country, you have that choice.

I don’t need to move because I support both Corporal and Capital Punishment. It doesn’t upset me either that other people don’t support these types of punishment. Someone who has butchered or murdered an innocent person deserves a harsh punishment imo. I accept that others think that games consoles, tv, therapy and the possibility of release after 15 years is appropriate although I can’t relate to it. Now toodle pip and jog on bag to your dictionary.

I don’t need to move because I support both Corporal and Capital Punishment. It doesn’t upset me either that other people don’t support these types of punishment. Someone who has butchered or murdered an innocent person deserves a harsh punishment imo. I accept that others think that games consoles, tv, therapy and the possibility of release after 15 years is appropriate although I can’t relate to it. Now toodle pip and jog on bag to your dictionary.

Touched a nerve? I thought I was the one unaccepting of others views but I’m supposed to jog on because you don’t agree with mine, interesting. If you’re going to throw around terms like ‘liberal’ as way to criticise someone then you really should know what the word means.

I also think that someone who has butchered or murdered an innocent person deserves a harsh punishment. I think we agree there. It’s just that I think that taking away someone’s freedom for the rest of their life is a harsh punishment where as you think that flogging them with a whip is more appropriate. I accept your view, I’m not sure why you’re claiming I don’t? I just think it’s hideous.

Love this idea that having games consoles and tv represents luxury as well. Prison is about rehabilitation. Most prisoners will rightly be released at some stage so I would suggest it’s important that they are mentally and physically prepared to reintegrate into society. This is in everyone’s benefit. If giving them access to basic facilities like a tv or medical therapy then so be it.

Whilst acknowledging that prisons have a part to play in the rehabilitation of offenders, and assisting with their integration back into society on their release, the idea of them is surely to punish them for crimes they have been convicted of by a jury of their peers.
The deprivation of their liberty should serve as exactly that, without the luxuries they have access to on the outside.

The prime function of prisons should be about safeguarding the public from these inmates, whether they are on shorter sentences due to their light fingered nature, in taking things that don't belong to them, sell drugs to vulnerable addicts, or the extreme sentences handed down to those who have a propensity to vioently assault others or that take the life of another.

As for the release on licence half way through a sentence, I find this absolutely perplexing. Why not just sentence them to that period of time and be done with it, instead of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of poor victims and claiming a job well done when lengthy sentences handed out.